Uploaded Beiting report from The Aerospace Corporation

and fitting whatever low-order polynomial has the best R^2 becomes more than reasonable...

Not really. But let's assume that's true for the moment. That means that Beiting did it all wrong, because the quartic fits have better R^2 values. Glad you agree with me that B needs to up his game a bit, Z...;)

What theory is that Jed? Maybe the one that says fitting the 7 data points with a quadratic, cubic, and quartic polynomial gives almost equivalent statistics, but the differences between the computed power values from those models are much larger that Beiting's quoted error? That's not a theory Jed, it's an observation.

Let me remind you again that Shanahan is on record repeatedly claiming that an object heated on Monday and left in a room at 20 deg C will still be hot on Wednesday.

To all--- This is one of Jed's perennial lies. He can't document that if he tried. What it shows is a) his inability to follow a technical argument, and b) the extent he will go to to try to discredit a skeptic.

fitting the 7 data points with a quadratic, cubic, and quartic polynomial gives almost equivalent statistics, but the differences between the computed power values from those models are much larger that Beiting's quoted error?

So, based on what I said: the fact that I am using my own derived data is not a new fact; the fact the R^2 vales are not the same is not a new fact; the fact that in fits of this overall quality, tiny difference make noticeable differences out in the 4th and 5th decimal point is not a new fact; and based on the fact that it would be best to use the real data to proceed further; it is clear that Z is the chump.

That means that Beiting did it all wrong, because [my] quartic fits have better R^2 values.

A while back you were bleating about me not supposedly not believing your employment history... Well frankly, I am now beginning to doubt it. For sure KS probably works at SR - but aren't you just some troll trying to make the real life person look bad? Don't tell me you really have access to nuclear materials. Good grief.

A) I stand by my comments that you quoted. You were deliberately attempting to insult me. Well, you succeeded. Good for you.

B) Why would you ever think you can insult and denigrate someone and not expect them to respond? That's insane.

BTW, I have reached this point because of your continued unwillingness to understand what I've been saying. Others get it. Why not you? I conlude it is deliberate, and I can't help but think you are trolling, so I will stop responding to you. Even if it seems you are asking a legitimate question, because that never turns out to be the case.

A while back you were bleating about me not supposedly not believing your employment history... Well frankly, I am now beginning to doubt it. For sure KS probably works at SR - but aren't you just some troll trying to make the real life person look bad? Don't tell me you really have access to nuclear materials. Good grief.

Quote

you chump

I thought overt insulting of forum participant and other real people, especially by the pseudonymous, was banned by forum policy. Apparently that doesn't apply to attacks on LENR critics.

When did you switch from being anti-Rossi/Defkalion/Randy Mills, to anti-LENR in general? At least in the recent past, you made a distinction between them, and kept your criticisms to the former. Something seems to have changed though. Not sure what, but I am guessing Kirk, or Louis Reed, had something to do with it. Are you appealing to authority?

How could one be anti-LENR? It'd save the world. I am against people who make inflated and unproven claims about it and about similar projects like the Genie Hybrid reactor. I am also opposed to people who mislead in order to solicit research money for LENR. I am very much in favor of research on LENR of any sort as long as the long odds against it working and the even longer odds of it ever being useful are explained ahead of time to investors -- sort of the opposite of what I think IH and TD do.

A) I stand by my comments that you quoted. You were deliberately attempting to insult me.

Yawn. I've explained twice now what I meant when I said "the only wind around here is coming out of your mouth". No one in their right mind would consider that impugns your employment history.

But in your addled head this somehow gets turned into "Kirk has never been near a fume hood", as opposed to the intended "the only wind currently being experienced, when sat at my computer, is coming out of Kirk's mouth".

And it has been noticed that you normally manufacture offence over this topic in order to divert attention from whatever your latest blooper is (see previous links)... Much like this latest occurrence, in fact.

I said Mizuno gave three reasons supporting his claim:Both Mizuno and his colleague Akimoto reported that the cell was far too hot to touch. Mizuno had to wrap it in towels to pick it up and move it to another room.

[Shanahan:] I granted this given that you are referring to when they disconnected it from the heaters that had heated it up to the point it was too hot to touch.

[Shanahan:] I granted this given that you are referring to
when they disconnected it from the heaters that had heated it up to the point
it was too hot to touch.

[Rothwell:] As I am sure you know,
this was the day after it was disconnected [CORRECTION IT WAS THREE DAYS LATER *], and it stayed too hot to touch for
10 days, even after evaporating 17 liters of water. So, no, I am not referring
to when they disconnected it.

Shahanan ignored this. He has made this claim again and again, but he has never responded when I and other point out this was days after the cell was disconnected.

Regarding his claim that the thermocouple malfunctioned, I pointed out that it was confirmed by two people by sense of touch. He wrote:

[Rothwell] "[snip]
A thermocouple malfunction cannot cause a cell to be too hot to touch, “

[Shanahan:] But it can precondition a human
to believe that the cell is hot and even dangerous, which would result in
misinterpreting sensory data. This impact of expectations on judgment (which is
what was being done by ‘touching’) is a well-established fact. That makes any
data of this nature highly suspect, and certainly not solid enough to conclude
physics textbooks must be rewritten.

So, here he is saying that the sense of touch can be fooled. My response:

[Rothwell] To what
extent? Do you seriously think that two middle aged scientists might be deluded
into thinking that an object wrapped in towels is too hot to touch when it is
actually at room temperature? Is that what you are saying? . . .

Have you ever heard of an
incident in which people's sense of touch was fooled to that extent? Were those
people professional chemists with decades of experience doing laboratory
science?

* [SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION. In the original message I said it was the next day. In fact, it was 3 days later. Electrolysis stopped April 22, 1991. Cell was hot, wrapped in towels and moved on April 25. See the chronology here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf]

You on the other hand, clearly wrote some time ago that Rossi had to be right on "prime principles" or some such, remember? Shall I dig up the quote?

Ah, but I retracted that, admitted I was wrong, and explained why. Do you see the difference? When I make a mistake, I admit it frankly, correct it, and move on. Shanahan has never admitted he made a mistake about anything.

Now then, do you agree with Shanahan that an object of this size once heated will remain hot the next day? And three days later? Are you with him on that? Because that is what he said. He said it again and again. He denies he said it it, then he says it again, then again denies he said it. He is gaslighting you. Do you agree with him that two adult chemists might not be able to feel the difference between an object at 100 deg C and one at room temperature?

KS: “Another
ad hom of course. You imply I lied about where I used to work. “

– the ’18 mph’
comes from a calc I did regarding the hood face velocity of some air hoods I
worked in that turned over about 3300 ft3/min.
By denigrating the number, Z is saying I ‘made it up’, i.e. lied about
where I used to work.

Yes. As I reported I worked for 8 years in a nuclear facility
with pure tritium. The air hoods I operated in were massive and had a 3300 cfm
flow rate associated with them, but all this air was drawn through several long
slits near knee-level and I calculated the flowrate there to be ~17 mph, which
I then used as my upper limit in flowrates in my exploration of what
ventilation rates would do to evaporation rates, which you refuse to
acknowledge I did.

Quoting Z: And in the
comfort of my living room, the "only wind around here" from my
perspective is emanating from your good self - the intricacies of your
employment history don't figure much into this.

Quoting KS: So you
confirm that you are calling me a liar because my 'employment history'
illustrates the 'why' of why I picked 17 mph as my maximum ventilation rate in
my parametric study of the incident. To remind you, the quotes from the post
you were responding to with the above comment pointed out your insinuation of
lying on my part.

Latest Z
quote #4:

Mizuno's bucket of water"I’ve explained this supposed ‘insinuation’ already. Just move
on and stop acting so crazy. Sheesh."

So you
confirm that you are calling me a liar because my 'employment history'
illustrates the 'why' of why I picked 17 mph as my maximum ventilation rate in
my parametric study of the incident. To remind you, the quotes from the post
you were responding to with the above comment pointed out your insinuation of
lying on my part.

--- and I can’t locate where he 'explained' why my calculation of 17 mph was wrong. It would be nearly impossible for him to do
anyway, since the calculation is based on my memory of the length, width, and
number of air intake vents on the lower part of the air hood I worked in. So, this is another of Z’s attempts to
misdirect the readers into thinking he’s shown something he was never even capable
of addressing.

It also illustrates his use of
selective quoting, where he only quotes the part of the post that supports his
contention, and banks on the fact you all won’t check it.

By denigrating the [windspeed] number, Z is saying I ‘made it up’, i.e. lied about where I used to work.

^ Completely crazy. You need psychological help.... Just accept that if I say three times that I don't think you lied about your employment history, it is true.

And if you think you understand my inner thoughts better than I do, you're a hopeless narcissist. Which isn't an insult - It has genuine clinical relevancy here.

But in an effort to draw a line under this latest diversionary thrust - I will state that I, Zeus46, truly believe Shanahan has worked with a fume hood at least once in his highly distinguished career, and that it was possibly some high-powered 17mph version.

...And I generally don't feel the need to apologise to someone for their own disturbed interpretations of what I write (particularly if they have history of displaying irrational thought processes), but it must be a great burden having such a paranoid and overactive imagination, so in this case I will apologise to you - for your inability to comprehend a simple unambiguous metaphor.

--- and I can’t locate where he 'explained' why my calculation of 17 mph was wrong

Oh dear, more memory problems Shanahan? I have never cared what the flow rate of your fantasy fume hood is... There wasn't one in Mizuno's lab - it exists only in your fevered imagination. Ultimately that is what's wrong with your so-called calculation.

For the rest of you, Z recently quoted 4 of my prior posts in an attempt to prove I’d done something wrong. Unfortunately they prove the opposite....

...It also illustrates his use of selective quoting, where he only quotes the part of the post that supports his contention, and banks on the fact you all won’t check it.

What? The above scenario is another product of your own febrile imagination. You couldn't remember your accusatory episode from a month ago, so I gave you some links, and some helpful quotes to remind you of what you said. It doesn't prove you've done anything 'wrong', and the only contention in this case is that you have a poor memory... Which was easily proven to be true, by said quotes.

I thought overt insulting of forum participant and other real people, especially by the pseudonymous, was banned by forum policy. Apparently that doesn't apply to attacks on LENR critics.

Like the English language, there are exceptions to the rule. Strictly my opinion; both Jed and Kirk have done their time in LENR...albeit in polar opposite roles. so who am I to tell them what they can, and cannot do?